Ironing out the SBS wrinkles

In amNew York today, Theresa Juva speaks to some East Side bus riders who are frustrated with the Select Bus Service glitches. Riders at popular stops have found that the machines run out of paper too frequently, and the MTA’s technicians aren’t notified until the paper is out. Furthermore, the machines have been installed too close to the curb and facing the street, thus creating a safety hazard for those purchasing a trip. I’ve also received emails from riders who have found their cards demagnetized by the SBS fare dispensers. It is, in other words, a work in progress.

For its part, Transit officials say they’re troubleshooting the machines. The authority is working to upgrade software to clear paper jams and alert technicians as the paper for the receipts dwindles down. “A lot of times with new equipment you have to do improvements,” spokesman Charles Seaton said. Of course, this could all be avoided if SBS didn’t require something as clunky and 1900s as a paper receipt, but I digress. Ultimately, though, it’s worth remember that the East Side Select Bus Service is still a relatively new service that’s working as a high-volume model for the MTA’s and DOT’s future Select Bus Service plans. If the machines don’t work now, the authority can better plan for future SBS iterations. Some aspects of the improved bus service work better than other, but as the guinea pigs along 1st and 2nd Ave. have found, you can’t beat faster bus service.

A physical MetroCard isn’t proof of anything, and handheld MetroCard readers don’t exist. For enough money, the MTA could pay for them to exist, but with the MetroCard system nearing obsolescence, would it really be worth it?

The machines are modifications of preexisting machines – design and procurement costs were clearly deliberately kept low. Most stops only have two MetroCard machines, which would be required regardless of swipe rate.

Special rules for malfunctions are needed no matter what.

What the paper-receipt model increases is frequency of service calls due to paper outages (and jams). It’s still probably cheaper than a major capital investment in a product that will be thrown out in a few years.

We’re talking in circles. With the MetroCard system, unfortunately, everybody has to swipe.

Moving the swipe location to would delay the bus if a large crowd is boarding – or even if a small crowd is boarding through the front door, since the driver isn’t allowed to move the bus until everyone is behind the white line. (That’s not to say that some drivers don’t care, but NYCT isn’t going to design a system that assumes violations of federal law.)

The ticket machines on the street are modified MetroCard vending machines. They’re way too bulky to put on a bus. So in addition to custom designed portable MetroCard readers for the inspectors, you also want custom designed MetroCard encoders to be installed on the buses – all amortized over a few years, since MetroCard won’t be around much longer.

It’s just not worth it. The current system is temporary. I guess the whole SBS program could have waited until smartcards, but isn’t the current system better than nothing?

The machines are really not new are they? They’ve been used on the the Bx12 for years now, so the new excuse doesn’t fly with me. It’s just poor management. I agree with the machines being too close to the curb. One person can barely fit between the curb and the machine, with their backs immediately to traffic (wow, that makes all the safety sense!), and there is little room to maneuver out once you’ve bought your ticket since certainly more than one person is buying a ticket at once. Lastly, and this is no surprise, when the bus lanes are not in effect, guess what, SBS has to travel in mixed traffic and is then subject to the same traffic jams that delay the M15 local. I recently rode a SBS bus a few stops on 2nd Ave when the bus lanes were not open, and it was just like to good old days, all over again.

If the machine is broken with an “out of service” message, the service call has already been placed (unless, I suppose, the issue is with the communication network, in which case it might not be able to send the service call).

I think 14th and 1st has had some machines added. I don’t know about the other stops. But that one seems to be the busiest.

I told a driver at Wall Street once and he WOULDN’T LET ANYONE BOARD the bus. Needless to say, we weren’t happy as he left the stop with an empty bus and a smug look on his face. Good to know most operators are more reasonable than that.

@Andrew
Thank you for the reply.
However, I don’t know if this means that the official procedure is also to let you board, as the site says-

“What to do if you can’t obtain a receipt at a fare collection machine or have some other problem

Take down the machine number.
If a machine is not working, please board the bus and tell the bus operator.
If a machine does not issue a receipt or return your MetroCard or coins ask the bus operator for a business reply envelope or call: 212 MetroCard (212-638-7622).”

That claim shouldn’t have been made unless they actually had rubber tired trains on the street.

I’ve been wonder if it were possible to build such a system. It would be like a rubber tire metro but steerable, and with rapidly repairable and replaceable pozzolanic super concrete pavement instead of steel rails. A city block northbound could accommodate a 4 car decoupleable set with the capacity of 4 IRT subway cars. The trains would draw power at stations and short overhead sections along the street to charge onboard high energy capacitors and high power batteries to fill in for the gaps. With enough power they could navigate steep grades and accelerate and decelerate rapidly.

Sounds extraordinarily expensive for something that wouldn’t be much faster than a bus. It would also have long headways – the flip side of a high-capacity vehicle is that it doesn’t have to run as often to carry the loads.

It might be easier to think of this in terms of light rail running on a street, but with steerable rubber wheels to give it flexibility. The aim is to have high capacity service and lower operating costs like rail based systems and the flexibility of buses.

The flexibility comes in handy when you consider all the situations when a street might be blocked/closed off. We’ve all seen crane and construction collapses, building fires, unstable buildings, parades, street fairs, police investigations, street reconstruction, utility work, and VIP related closures (UN General Assembly, President in town) among other street disruptions.

The concrete would last longer than steel rails or asphalt road surfaces, so would pay for themselves over time.

The investment necessary to setup manufacturing would be expensive if the procurement was small, so a large fleet is necessary to keep per unit costs down. Firms with experience with rail and bus systems, or a consortium of firms with the know how, would be ideal to build such a vehicle. If the MTA could say that they will order 1,000 units, or get other Transit agencies involved, that would get companies interested.

Enforced exclusive lanes and traffic signal modifications akin to BRT systems would speed up travel. Ideally, these would run separated from the rest of traffic on elevated guideways. However, that would erode construction cost advantages vs light rail, and getting residents acceptance would be daunting. Sidebar: There are sections, on the Upper East Side, where the current SBS M15 is hampered by construction and lane issues. It might be a cause for bunching as the bus has to navigate the area.

It can be 4 cars (200′), but 3 and 2 car units (150′, 100′) can be had if 4 proves to be too long. Traffic signals prioritization, and possibly even an onboard operator signal interface, can keep the 4 car units from blocking the box at intersections bracketing short blocks, by letting the “train” pass through to a longer block. Route and stop location adjustments are a last resort.

Another advantage is the high capacity of each car. If the demand is high, low headway multiple car units can have upwards of 50,000 persons/hr per lane. If and when the demand is lower, the option of running fewer/single car units with lower headway, or running longer units with subway like 5-10 min mid-day headways are available. The single car units would have the passenger capacity the equivalent of an IRT car (176). That is comparable to a double articulated bus that is 80’+ long.

There is a valid point of overcapacity. This is definitely not suited to low volume routes. It is meant for mid to high capacity routes. Lines running over Northern Blvd and Queens Blvd into Manhattan CBD’s (with exclusive lanes over the Queensboro Bridge) to alleviate crush loads on the 7 and Queens Blvd Lines at rush hour are 2 examples. Routes up and down the avenues in Manhattan to relieve overloaded subway lines would be another example.

Crush loading is a technical term. None of the subway lines are crush loaded on a sustained basis (although crush loads will appear anywhere for a brief period in response to a major service delay).

The 7, F, M, and R carry impressive loads in Queens, but none are overcrowded. The E is the only Queens line that is close to overcrowded. If E riders would rather put up with the crowds that ride the local, what would be the attraction of a fancy bus, which would be even slower than the local?

Let’s say the M15 were converted to this fancy bus. Say each “train” had three times the capacity of a normal articulated bus. Then, assuming no change in ridership, NYCT would cut frequencies by 2/3.

The passenger capacity of an IRT car is 110. The number you use, 176, may be a crush capacity, although it seems quite high even for that. True crush loads are uncommon. With 176 people inside an IRT car, it would be impossible for anyone in the middle to get off the train – by definition, there is no wiggle room at all.

Yeah, but bigger, with multiple vehicles that can be easily and rapidly linked together to make train like units, and run on electricity. It would combine the acceleration and deceleration of buses to allow for short headways, with the per vehicle capacity of A division cars.

If run separated from traffic (at grade, or more expensively, on elevated guideways or tunnels), and with 10 car units, 1 min headways, and large high volume stations, the capacity could reach over 100,000 persons/hr per lane.

Now, why all this? Trying to find an alternative cheaper and faster to implement than subways with subway like capacity, and similar trip times of the old elevated lines torn down decades ago.

You’re not going to get anything close to subway capacity. If you’re building elevated guideways or tunnels, you’re building a subway line, but with nonstandard rolling stock. I’m not sure what the point of that is. It’s certainly not cheap.

This is fantasy. Sorry. First, the infrastructure for this is the same as for the subway – tunnels or elevated berms. Second, 1-minute headways simply do not exist on rapid transit; some driverless trains are capable of 1:20 or 1:30, but the more common minimum is 2:00. And third, this technology you’re proposing will still derail all the time.

With any invention like this, think long and hard about questions like “Why they haven’t done this in Tokyo yet?”. (Or Zurich, or Paris, etc.)

That wasn’t the claim. SBS was referred to – quite obviously not literally – as a “surface subway.” Meaning that it’s a bus but that it does some things more like the subway. In particular, fare collection is more subway-like (before boarding) than bus-like (on the bus, at least in most New Yorkers’ expectations).

The main reason they were also called surface subways initially was the promise of a dedicated and physically separated right-of-way. That of course didn’t materialize, although luckily bus-mounted cameras did.

New Yorkers aren’t experts in how fares are paid in Berlin. They are experts in how fares are paid in New York. SBS fare payment is more like subway fare payment than (standard) bus fare payment in New York.

Fare collection is a pretty trivial difference between subways and buses. So if that’s the standard for SBS being a surface subway, then it suggests that the MTA officials who sold it this way either a) are completely ignorant of POP worldwide or b) know how POP worldwide works and chose to mislead the public.

[…] along Fordham Road in the Bronx, the first SBS route in the city. Off-board fare collection, broken machines, fare abuse, and $100 fines for fare violators, others who are simply unaware that payment is […]